Disturbing Huckabee Position

[Big Don]

Anyone that would even conceive of the possibility of changing the Constitution from a document of government into some kind of religious document doesn't even grasp the concept of "Separation of Church and State".

There should be a damn test before you're allowed to vote, I swear...

Will the fact that the phrase "Separation of Church and State" is nowhere in the Constitution be part of that test?

How about the fact that the judge (Hugo Black) who injected the separation of church and state into the law by stare decisis, was a member of the KKK?

 

[Big Don]

He isn't talking about making anything illegal. What he is really talking about is giving the states the right

Careful! There are those around who think mentioning state's rights is blatant racism...

 

[Xue Sheng]

Anyone that would even conceive of the possibility of changing the Constitution from a document of government into some kind of religious document doesn't even grasp the concept of "Separation of Church and State".

There should be a damn test before you're allowed to vote, I swear...

Not sure how to respond here... but I am not advocating changing the Constitution into a religious document.... actually I am very much against it.

 

[shesulsa]

Okay - I think we need to establish, for the sake of argument, what event decided the "founding of our country."

Was it the arrival of Europeans to the portion of the North American Continent now delineated as US soil? Or was it the formation, signing and adopting of the documents which declared our independence from English sovereignty and established law in these United States?

The first Europeans to arrive were all Christians of one type or another, to be sure. Virtually all forms of government at the time recognized a god and a religious figure as the head of state - or, rather, the head of state was also the head of the state religion.

John Locke et al argued most fervently for social contracts rather than religious law. These arguments were most influential upon our founding fathers, though contractualism in this manner has been the topic of debate for years - the reconciliation between civil rights of the human being and the civil rights of the citizen.

But we must define, I think, what the event we all term "The Founding Of This Nation" actually *was.*

IMHO, it is the contractualization of the colonies and their collective and interlocked declaration of independence from Mother England and the framing of its Constitution.

Thoughts?

 

[Doc_Jude]

Will the fact that the phrase "Separation of Church and State" is nowhere in the Constitution be part of that test?

How about the fact that the judge (Hugo Black) who injected the separation of church and state into the law by stare decisis, was a member of the KKK?

Like a racist can't come up with a good idea?

 

[Big Don]

Like a racist can't come up with a good idea?

So, it isn't part of the Constitution? You were arguing it was a few posts ago...

 

[Xue Sheng]

Will the fact that the phrase "Separation of Church and State" is nowhere in the Constitution be part of that test?

Will the fact is I don't think he said it was part of the Constitution. He was however talking about the concept of "Separation of Church and State".

How about the fact that the judge (Hugo Black) who injected the separation of church and state into the law by stare decisis, was a member of the KKK?

How about the Crusades, the Spanish inquisition, Bosnia, the Middle East, Treatment of Native Americans by Spanish explorers, Monks and conquerors. All sanctioned religious activity by a government or governments… To name a few

 

[shesulsa]

So, it isn't part of the Constitution? You were arguing it was a few posts ago...

I'm not the individual you were addressing, but from www.usconstitution.net:

God
It has often been seen on the Internet that to find God in the Constitution, all one has to do is read it, and see how often the Framers used the words "God," or "Creator," "Jesus," or "Lord." Except for one notable instance, however, none of these words ever appears in the Constitution, neither the original nor in any of the Amendments. The notable exception is found in the Signatory section, where the date is written thusly: "Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven". The use of the word "Lord" here is not a religious reference, however. This was a common way of expressing the date, in both religious and secular contexts. This lack of any these words does not mean that the Framers were not spiritual people, any more than the use of the word Lord means that they were. What this lack of these words is expositive of is not a love for or disdain for religion, but the feeling that the new government should not involve itself in matters of religion. In fact, the original Constitution bars any religious test to hold any federal office in the United States.
Thanks to James MacDonald for the idea.

 

[Doc_Jude]

But we must define, I think, what the event we all term "The Founding Of This Nation" actually *was.*

Well, considering we were nothing but a British Colony, albeit a rebellious one, until the Framers took things in hand, then I think that answers the question. We were a country when we were established.
(1777 if you want to count the Articles of Confederation or 1788 with the ratification of the Constitution. Washington took office in '88 or '89, I don't remember which)

 

[Andrew Green]

Will the fact that the phrase "Separation of Church and State" is nowhere in the Constitution be part of that test?

How about the fact that the judge (Hugo Black) who injected the separation of church and state into the law by stare decisis, was a member of the KKK?

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

- Thomas Jefferson

The phrase wasn't in the official wording, but I'd say the intent was.

 

[Doc_Jude]

So, it isn't part of the Constitution? You were arguing it was a few posts ago...

I don't recall saying the Separation of Church & State was addressed by the Constitution. Don't put words in my mouth, please.

 

[Doc_Jude]

...

You get it yet?

 

[tellner]

Cruentus, sorry to quote Bill Clinton here, but "I feel your pain."

Huckabee is the only Republican candidate out there who sees the government as something other than a tool for cronies to extract as much of the people's wealth as possible with the least oversight. He's joined by Edwards and Kucinich on the Democratic side and that's about it. He has some very good ideas. I wouldn't call them Libertarian, more old-school down-home Southern politics.

It's sad to have to say "This guy has such fundamentally un-American and anit-Constitutional ideas he shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the Presidency." The fact that he's personable and has other good plans doesn't fish out the turds in the punchbowl. In fact, it makes him more dangerous. The bad stuff can slide by if it's got a folksy aw-shucks wrapper.

 

[tellner]

Shesulsa, actually you can look at specifics about the founding of the United States. There were other rationalists and social-contract philosophers before. But until this country's government was established it was just philosophizing. A government without monarchs, nobility or established Church was a new thing and marked a definite departure for Europeans in the Americas.

 

[tellner]

For the love of Pete, Don, you just can't stop flogging old Dobbin even though the buzzards think he's too ripe.

"Liberals are fascists. Liberals are communists. Science is all lies unless it makes me feel good about myself. We always had the same values and they were based on obsessions about what people did with their naughty bits." A lot of people have given you ample evidence to show where you're wrong. You choose to ignore every single bit of it or claim that you find it "offensive" or attack the messenger.

If you want to force Christian principles onto everything you should look up a quote about beams and splinters by Isa ben Miriam, carpenter turned Saducee rabbi lately of Nazareth. Your own Church was entirely and proudly racist until the 1970s. In the early days it practiced *shudder* Christian Socialism. It kidnapped - and by some accounts still does - Native children to place in White homes. So let's hear no more of this, shall we?

 

[Cruentus]

Actually, he is talking about altering the Constitution. The Constitution is the foundation of the highest law in the land. If he calls for altering the Constitution with a 'human life amendment', he is most definately talking about making abortion illegal. If he calls for 'traditional marriage' being altered to the word of a living God, he is talking about making divorce illegal.

If one follows the logic chain of his statements; he is absolutely not taking a 'libertarian' or 'states rights' or 'vote with your feet' position. He talking about altering the Constitution. I believe the 10th Amendment tells us the provisions covered by the Constitution can not be taken by the the States.

It seems to me that you are giving your interpretation as to the meaning of what he is saying. His interpretation has been to make amendments that give the authority to the states; so I have to go with that as being what he means.

 

[Cruentus]

Cruentus, sorry to quote Bill Clinton here, but "I feel your pain."

Huckabee is the only Republican candidate out there who sees the government as something other than a tool for cronies to extract as much of the people's wealth as possible with the least oversight. He's joined by Edwards and Kucinich on the Democratic side and that's about it. He has some very good ideas. I wouldn't call them Libertarian, more old-school down-home Southern politics.

It's sad to have to say "This guy has such fundamentally un-American and anit-Constitutional ideas he shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the Presidency." The fact that he's personable and has other good plans doesn't fish out the turds in the punchbowl. In fact, it makes him more dangerous. The bad stuff can slide by if it's got a folksy aw-shucks wrapper.

Well... again, so far his clarifications on his policies on abortion and gay marriage has been to give the rights to the states. We have to go with his explination and determine what it means and the honesty of it, not our interpretation.

I compare this to Obama not saluting during the Anthem, and not wearing a flag pin. People all over the internet interpreted this to mean that he is a suppporter of Islamic facism, that he is not patriotic, and so forth. Yet, he explains it, and it is clear that he is not an Islamic facist.

The reality is Obama made a mistake, and had to backpedal with it and explain it away. The same is true here. Huckabee made a huge mistake here that might cost him the election.

But Obama's mistake doesn't make him a terrorist supporter, and Huckabee's mistake doesn't make him a Christian zealot who plans to Christianize the constitution. We have to look at how they explain their action, not just at how other people interpret it.

 

[Andrew Green]

Huckabee is the only Republican candidate out there who sees the government as something other than a tool for cronies to extract as much of the people's wealth as possible with the least oversight. He's joined by Edwards and Kucinich on the Democratic side and that's about it. He has some very good ideas. I wouldn't call them Libertarian, more old-school down-home Southern politics.

Ron Paul should be on that list too, he's a little nutty, but definitely against big government.

 

[Doc_Jude]

It seems to me that you are giving your interpretation as to the meaning of what he is saying. His interpretation has been to make amendments that give the authority to the states; so I have to go with that as being what he means.

Actually, if he were to get an Amendment added to the Constitution that somehow defined human life as beginning at conception & that gave rights to said non-viable fetus, he wouldn't have to challenge Roe VS Wade, since it's the bailiwick of the Judicial Branch to determine what is Constitutional and what is not. Such an amendment would instantly nullify any pro-choice legislation up to that point.
Also, he could "leave it up to the states" and have no qualms about it, since the states can only add to the Constitution but not take away.

 

[michaeledward]

It seems to me that you are giving your interpretation as to the meaning of what he is saying. His interpretation has been to make amendments that give the authority to the states; so I have to go with that as being what he means.

You state that Mr. Huckabee's "interpretation has been to make amendemnts that give the authority to the states".

Where?

The language Mr. Huckabee used has been quoted in this thread.

"[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards,"

Huckabee: On two things. The context is two things. Human life amendment, which I support and which has been in the Republican platform since 1980. And by the way, Fred Thompson doesn’t support it, nor does John McCain. And yet it’s part of our platform and it’s a very important part of our platform to say that human life is something we’re going to stand for. And the second thing is traditional marriage. So those are the two areas in which I’m talking about. I’m not suggesting that we re-write the constitution to reflect tithing or Sunday school attendance. I want to make that very clear.
​

Neither of these quotes indicates that Mr. Huckabee is suggesting the choice to follow his living God's word is a decision that should be left to the State. His language indicates he wishes to alter the highest legal document in the land to equal his interpretation of the Bible.

When you say I am putting "my interpretation" into the language we are discussing; you are correct in that I am explaining the results of what his language indicates. Maybe your bible doens't contain the verse Matthew 19:6, or Ephesians 5:25. And perhaps your church doesn't interpret those passages in the same manner as another.

While we may disagree with what the outcome my be concerning a law that describes 'traditional marriage', I don't see any language from Mr. Huckabee suggesting that these decisions should be left to the "several States".